SOCIAL MODERNISM. — By analogy with dogmatic Modernism, one may call s. m. that movement of ideas and activities which, with regard to political and professional society, claims to regulate itself without taking account of the norms and essential principles proclaimed by the Church, or without assigning the Church the place that belongs to her. It proceeds from an erroneous ideal and practical overstepping of the doctrinal limits of Catholic morality, under the pretext that it is necessary to move with the times, as though essential truth were mutable and subject to variation.
These Modernist deviations were described in Pius XI’s encyclical Ubi arcano of 28 December 1922, and refer to theories professed by some «concerning social authority, the right of property, relations between capital and labor, the rights of workers, relations between Church and State, between religion and politics, between class and class, between nation and nation, the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the episcopate, the social rights of Jesus Christ himself, Creator and Redeemer, Lord of individuals and peoples» (AAS, 14 [1922], p. 696).
Historically, an anticipation of s. m., although the designation is more recent, may be seen in the intellectual movement led by Lamennais (v.) and the companions of L’Avenir, insofar as the concept of freedom was altered and good and evil were placed on an equal footing: a movement promptly condemned by Gregory XVI in the encyclicals Mirari vos (1832) and Singulari (1834), followed later by other documents, such as the Syllabus of Pius IX (1864), and above all by the social encyclicals of Leo XIII, including the encyclical Libertas (1888) and Rerum novarum (1891).
As social studies advanced and Christian Democracy arose (a social concept popularized with Rome’s approval and immediately fervently supported by many young priests), a notable group of conservatives and intégristes in France and Italy, who in fact rejected both the name and the substance of democracy, sought to accuse all the initiatives of the boldest and most genuine Christian sociologists of s. m.; at their head were, in France, Leone Harmel and, in Italy, Giuseppe Toniolo, and they seized upon some inaccurate expression that had escaped the most ardent propagandists. The truth is that neither the promoters and supporters of Christian Democracy, nor the abbots Lemire, Naudet, Gayrand, Garnier and Marc Sagnier in France, nor the priests don Albertario, don Vercesi, don Torregrossa, p. Ghignoni, p. Semeria, don Sturzo, etc., in Italy, with their large following among the young, can be called social Modernists. Even in the controversy, they generally remained orthodox. Moreover, Leo XIII, in his encyclical Graves de communis (1901), had appropriately warned all those aspiring to the social reign of Jesus Christ, safeguarding them from every possible deviation, and Pius X, in his encyclical Il fermo proposito of 11 June 1905, had laid down practical norms for Catholic Social Action.
Various excesses in the Modernist sense nevertheless occurred at that time: in Belgium, in the attitude of Abbot Daens and his Democratic League; in France, in the organization of the Sillon (v.), disapproved by Pius X (1910); and in Italy, with the Rivista di cultura, Battaglie d’oggi, and the organization of don Romolo Murri’s (v.) National Democratic League, which advocated an autonomism that could not be permitted. These were dangerous moments. In general, however, it cannot be said that s. m. took root and established a school. At the present time, both in France and Italy, and also in the other nations, Christian sociology is integrated into Catholic Action organizations offering full guarantees. In particular, the «Social Weeks» (c.) maintain the strictest orthodoxy, while allowing free discussion, in which even the boldest theses may be expressed.
It does not seem appropriate to include in this classification the attempts of certain progressive or communist Christians in recent years, serving a helping hand that was all too evidently treacherous; in any event, they remained insignificant in number and entirely without a following.